Replies

The accumulated data on blood-alcohol content not withstanding, is a 5% likelihood of a serious accident an appropriate threshold? 1%? 10%? And how serious should serious be? How many fatalities are acceptable? Why not have zero tolerance?

How young is too young? Why is 18 accepted as adult for most concerns instead of 15 or 20 or 25? Why do you have to be 35 to be President? How come you can use tobacco at 18 but not alcohol? My 17 year old is brighter and more responsible than many 20 somethings I knew in college. Hell, my 7 year old is. Should they get the vote? Why do we say 18 to vote instead of administering an adulthood test to gain the privilege of voting, driving, drinking, joining the military, procreating, expressing political opinions and so on? Well, because somebody would have to establish standards for the test - arbitrary standards - and that would be unacceptable.

So, we have the arbitrary standards we have. They may be based on accumulated statistics and majority acceptance of assessed or perceived risk, but they are still arbitrary.

Oh, you might have misunderstood my position on polygamy. I wasn't supporting it, merely rejecting your argument against it.

The example of ages of consent merely illustrates that even something as important as marriage/sexuality/procreation is subject to arbitrary standards. Why not simply say you can't have sex until you are married and you can't get married until you are 18(or 20, or 15 or passed the adulthood test?) Why even have an age of consent? Why is (was?) the age of consent in WV 12? Probably so some influential legislator or governor could legally get his side nookie - but, gee, isn't adultery still illegal? And isn't adultery defined by many (arbitrarily?) as any sexual act outside of marriage? So why have rules for the conduct of something that is against the rules in the first place? Oh, please define marriage while you are at it. One-man-one-woman-one-time? One-man-at-a-time-to-one-woman-at-a-time? Can clergy marry? Not even all Christians can agree there.

Also, 'We' have not allowed gay 'marriage'. A few have abused their positions and arbitrarily declared it to be a right. Others have rejected it. That boat has not yet docked.

I guess the point is that seemingly arbitrary standards become traditions. Some traditions advance society, some impede it. Measure the achievements of societies that conform to monotheistic standards against those that don't.

I agree that setting the standards on alcohol use are too stringent, and that they undermine the law. But liberals argued for these after they'd dismantled other strictures.

As far as who gets their nookie, and when, and with how many, I consider it irrelevant. What I oppose is the dismantling of the legal concept of marriage as an arrangement between one man and one woman, which is basically construed to protect their children and manage the distribution of property.

That is, from when we had property. Now you want to see arbitrary? Stick around...